Sunday, December 27, 2009

In my earlier posting I set out Sarah Palin's path to election as president in 2012 via the electoral college based on the most recent projections of population shifts.

On December 23rd the Census Bureau detailed these shifts and a demographic and political research firm "Polidata" set out their analysis (as reported in National Journal.com) of the new electoral college shifts based on the Census Bureau's statistics.

This resulted in the following changes for my view of the 2012 result;

Texas will now gain 4 electoral votes instead of the projected 3
Utah will gain 1 electoral vote instead of none
Louisiana will lose 1 (this loss was a matter of conjecture)
Missouri will not lose an electoral vote (this was considered a possiblity).

The end result is that, based on my analysis, Palin will gain 2 further electoral votes (1 Texas and 1 Utah) and lose 1 (Louisiana) for a final gain of 1 electoral vote.

This takes her projected total to 266 electoral votes-4 short of victory. As before this could come from Colorado's 9 electoral votes
or Iowa's 6 electoral votes (Iowa loses 1 electoral vote from 7 but winning it still gives her a 2 electoral vote margin).As before she would have 28 states-well above half which gives added credibility.

The winning structure is as before;

Retain all 22 states electoral votes won in 2008 plus their additional electoral votes from the population shift.Win the states lost by less than 2.5%-North Carolina, Indiana, Florida and Nebraska's 1 lost EV.
Win Ohio,Virginia and either Colorado or Iowa.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

If a Blog attacks a position or statement,past or current,from Sarah Palin from a non-Republican point of view-that's fine. Rational debate is what principled conservatism is all about.If the strong discussion or opposition comes from within the Republican party,and especially from a candidate for office,should that arise,then...all well and good. If we can't defend her and support her policies then they are not worth holding.

The Palin Purity Blog Test (PPBT) is not based on ideology,religious purity,support of Teabaggerism or a rigid conservativism. The very last thing it is,is some sort of rigorous examination of non-deviating support of all and everything Palin without the slightest swerve from a binding orthodoxy.

The Palin Purity Blog Test is based on the following five principles;

1.Adherence to the truth
2.Dignified replies (however vigorous) to posted responses from the public
3.No personal attacks-ad hominems.
4.Not holding positions in respect of Palin which border on madness.
5.No cynical postings playing to readers ridiculous jealousies/neuroses.

Rick Moran's " Right Wing Nut House" blog fails on points two and three.His anti-Palin positions are, by the standards above, infuriating coming from a supposedly right of centre blogger.Further his anti-Hillary stand vs Obama in the primary battle leads one to question where exactly he is at politically-including a possible misogynistic streak.Thus, his conservatism, is open to debate but his gross rudeness to posters in reply to criticism is obvious and unacceptable.

Charles Johnson at " Little Green Footballs" ,whose shift in ideology is readily apparent also fails points two and three.The redoubtable Stacey McCain at "The Other McCain" and the widely praised Dan Reihl at "Reihl World View" have dealt with this in depth in their usual dogged way.

From a right wing position which only exists in his head (going on the Joy Behar show of all things) Andrew Sullivan fails point four. The "Bree Palin" blog, all the "Trig Truthers" and mad bloggers in Alaska who are neither right nor left-just bonkers fail (badly) points four and five. The leftist cynics list who fail point five include, par excellence, the Huffington Post and Shannyn Moore.

How to deal with these and their ilk? Moran admits his readership has dropped substantially-as has Johnson's.The best way to enforce the Palin Purity Blog Test is to simply ignore these blogs.It is tempting to want to check in with them from time to time,especially when a major crisis arises, to see how they react. Morbid curiosity tempts too (like a visit to Bedlam) but these impulses should be resisted.Note, ignore not ban-they musn't be given the chance to shout "undemocratic impulses on the right".

No more views too of Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Wonkette,Gawker. Let them froth and gibber in their echo chamber. We have better viewing and more importantly better work to do. It may be satisfying to fire off a rebuttal to a ridiculous statement but you are just feeding the beast. Sarah Palin represents the New Person,lets make an aspect of that an always positive, always constructive state of mind. One path to this state of mind is to free it from all negativity-and ignoring hostile bloggers is one of the steps.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Frank Rich has an excellent opinion piece in The New York Times (of all places which is an indication how the Obama worship tide is going out) "Tiger Woods,person Of the Year". Buyers remorse statements are starting to appear-first a trickle and soon the flood-the latest being Michael Goodwin's piece in the New York Post "Dreading Our Future" which includes this heartfelt statement "President Obama for whom I voted....is a profound disappointment".

Rich's premise,as I read it, is that Woods is an indication,in fact the preeminent one in his opinion,of how the public has been deceived, blinded, mocked and basically taken for a sucker during the past decade.

He cites this degredation,for such it is, with examples from business (Enron/Wall Street/Bernanke) sports (Woods of course),and politics (name your poison) with Obama,or rather his creators/enablers being the eye-puller-overs in chief.

The only reason why Obama was not given the dubious honor of being Rich's person of the year was, I believe, he has only had a year or so at it whereas Woods has had a good long run.Have no fear however,Obama has plenty of time to continue with the style over substance sleight of hand.

It is a sad article and it must be admitted that in many cases the victims were willing accomplices.When the stock market manipulators were pushing up the value of portfolios, when the public bought celebrity endorsed products,voted for "hope" and avidly bought tittle tattle magazines they were compliant to a degree.But compliance is a world away from being manipulative deceivers.

What is missing from Rich and Goodwin's articles is the striking of a positive note.Rich ends despairingly,continuing with the Tiger Woods analogy "it is the country,sad to say, that is left mired in a sand trap with no obvious way out"

However,there is a way both out and forwards.This is of course Sarah Palin.Whatever ones view of her it would be impossible to include her in Rich's list of the "Tiger Woods" deceivers of the year/decade.Her pro-life attitude,in fact her having lived her pro-life beliefs with the birth of her Downs Syndrome son,immediately sets her apart.

It would also be impossible to believe that if it were nearly a year into her presidency there would be buyers remorse based on a lack of fulfillment of promises, a bitterly divided nation, profilgacy with taxpayers money and a lack of support for our moral obligations overseas.

The fact is that the very same forces which created the current administration have relentlessly, to an unprecedented degree attacked, besmirched and picked apart every word and nuance she says and writes. Her every action is subject to a scrutiny (witness the ridiculous "visorgate" nonesense) that no one else is subject to. All this attention is proof positive that she stands apart from and is a threat to the dishonest forces which have so played with the great mass of down to earth citizens.

The great mass of Americans are wakeing up-the Tea Party rallies were the first harbinger of dramatic change which is coming (2010 will be an avalanche). The person whom tens of thousands waited for in bitter cold, many overnight, to have even a few seconds with, will through stark contrast with the machinations of the soon to tumble down old order, spearhead honest change.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Sarah Palin's support for Israel is unquestioned,abiding and deep.It is a core aspect of her world view-world including its outer and internal aspects.

Outer in that her foreign policy decisions as President would,where applicable,always take into consideration the affect those decisions would have on Israel-that nations security being paramount.

Inner,because her Christianity (which includes family) is her core being.Even her most strident critics,who view everything Palin through a prism of conceit and deceit,would admit her Christian faith to be real.

In point of view they would only admit of its validity to either ridicule it or to attack the pro-Israel aspects-such is the topsy-turvy world of liberal thought where the "other" is subject to personal attacks of the basest kind.Their method is condescension and ridicule with an elitist sneer worthy of 1950's Britains ruling class,but without the acerbic wit.

Her religion is only one of a number of structured attacks on Palin,there are so many going on at once it is hard to keep track of them all.They include her being a hypocrite for travelling in a private jet,a bad mother for taking her children on tour-and for not taking them on tour.She is dumb,she is too clever by half and etc.None of this rubbish sticks anymore as it has no substance but they keep throwing them out there in the hope that some might catch on.

Her support of Israel and the possible reason for it (apart from it being the right thing to do for the sake of common humanity) through the connection with Pentacostal Christianity is another matter.It is weighty and deserves analysis.the controversy arose because Palin,when questioned on her foreign policy views by Barbara Walters,voiced support for Israel's right to build more settlements. "I believe Jewish settlements should be allowed to grow...I don't think the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the settlements cannot expand"

The second aspect of her answer,which appears to be related directly with her religious views and how they relate to Israel Palin said "More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead".

This has been interpreted,with validity I believe,as relating to the Pentecostal "last days" belief.This generally holds that before the return of Christ,in the last days,the Jews shall be gathered in the holy land.This will happen in a time of violent war (i.e. invasion)in Israel which will be ended by Christ with a portion of the surviving Jews (Zechariah 13 8/9) recognizing Jesus as the Messiah in fulfillment of biblical prophecy and ushering in the rule of Christ over Israel and all the nations.

Israel has historically been a grain of sand of freedom amd democracy surrounded by a sea of repressive dictatorships.It is a legitimate creation of the United Nations which was, at its inception, supported by the left and the far left.Truman and Stalin raced to be the first to recognize the new country diplomatically.It is of course perfectly legitmate to criticize Israel when it is wrong but not legitimate to strive to seek to remove it from existence.

What is also not valid is to criticise Palin's support of Israel, and her concept of an ingathering,from a party political point of view.These are religious matters which the supposedly tolerant left should leave alone and let religious minded people debate the finer points of doctrine amongst themselves.

It is ridiculous to hold,even for one second,that Palin could not separate her support for the legitimacy and security of Israel as a political entity from her support of Israel in biblical prophesy.Kissinger and Albright managed to keep faith and heritage apart from their politics.Why then should Palin be any less capable than JFK was to keep his belief in the Pope separate from his constitutional oath of office?

For those who attack Palins religious beliefs regarding Israel from a liberal i.e.leftist Jewish standpoint let the, amongst the wisest and most liberal of Jewish heroes, Rabbi Gamaliel,have the last word.Gamaliel was described in Acts chapter 7 vs.28 as "an expert on religious law and very popular with the people" and in the Talmud (a commentary on the bible) "it was said of him when he died righteousness perished from the earth". He was the grandson of Rabbi Hillel,perhaps the originator of the Golden Rule and possibly a teacher of St.Paul.

When Peter and the other apostles were brought before the religious authorites Gamaliel said (Acts 7 Vs 38/39)"If what they have planned and done is of human origin it will disappear.But if it comes from God you cannot possibly defeat them".

This indisputable judgement should be the touchstone for all attitudes to Palin's religious beliefs towards Israel-if these beliefs happen then it is God's will.If they don't then what is the harm to anyone.Judge Palin on her oath to the constitution and her defending America's security at home and abroad against real threats from those who would destroy our values.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

The McCain/Palin team were faced with almost every possible impediment to victory.Number one,and perhaps the key factor,was a media hugely,in fact obsessively in the can for Obama.Further,rather than as a corollary simply ignoring the GOP team the media embarked on a campaign of vilification perhaps unprecedented in recent electoral history-to the level in fact that any semblance of balance was destroyed.

Secondly,the Republican team were shouldered with the burden of an extremely unpopular President,so unpopular that mechanisms were found to keep both Bush and Cheney from the nominating convention.

Thirdly,and perhaps the final straw,the campaign was hit when the economy succumbed to a massive financial panic with the ensuing need for immediate,massive and unpopular emergency measures which,whatever their validity,pleased no one.

Of course there were things done during the campaign which might have been done better (as is the case with any campaign) e.g. "suspending" the campaign at the height of the financial crisis,McCain's handling of the bailout and of course his staff's handling of Palin's activities.Also,and something I very much agree with Palin about,the campaign was reticent about raising "legitimate questions" about Obama's past and associations.
However,I do not believe these sundry items,if handled differently,would have made enough of a difference to have changed the eventual outcome-a state or two might have been saved at best.

Thus,with a grossly biased media supporting a candidate of unique background with a message of hope and change,a highly unpopular administration,an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions since 1929 and the usual campaign mishaps the fact that McCain/Palin won 22 states with 173 electoral votes of the 270 required to be elected (popular vote totals do not have final bearing on who wins)the GOP team did remarkably well.So well that a solid basis for victory in 2012 has been put in place.

The following two states were lost by under 1%.North Carolina 15 electoral votes lost by 0.4% and Indiana 11 EV 0.9%. Nebraska 1 EV 1.2% (The GOP won Nebraska's four other EV's). At the next level Florida's 27 EV's were lost by 2.5% and Ohio's 20 by 4.0% and at the highest level for this exercise Virginia's 13 EV's by 6.3% and Colorado's 9 EV's by 8.5%.

All these states were won by Bush in 2004 and only lost in 2008 in the most difficult of electoral circumstances which,with Obama no longer the symbol of hope and change, will not be repeated.It would take just a small movement against the sitting party to return most of these states to their historic place in the red column

There is another factor in play-population shift and the consequent change in electoral votes,some states gaining EV's and some losing.The projections,for the States under consideration here are:
Florida +1 to 28 Ohio -2 to 18.For states safely in the red column the gains are Texas +3 to 37 Arizona +1 to 11 Georgia +1 to 16 South Carolina +1 to 9.With these population based gains,plus regaining the 5 states from 2004 (and Nebraska's one EV) Palin would have 265 EV's-just 5 EV's short. Winning Colorado's 9 EV's would give her a comfortable victory and a 4 EV cover to allow for any loss of EV's in the 2008 won states e.g. Missouri and Louisiana.

There is an alternative route which is instead of Colorado substitute Iowa,which loses one EV to 6 and would also do the trick.Iowa,which was also a Bush 2004 state was lost by 9% but given Palin's obvious appeal to the evangelical element in that state it could be won-especially of course if she wins that states primary battle.There are various alternate projections (e.g. Michael Barone in U.S. News&World Report) but this analysis, if adjusted to reflect alternative EV forward projections, still gives Palin the victory.Importantly,this path to victory would give Palin 28 states-well over 50%, which would further legitimize her election if won through the electoral college rather than through a majority of votes and the electoral college.

Thus the electoral map looks very promising.Hold the states won in 2008,reap the electoral college gains from population shifts,benefit from any voter unhappiness with the party in power (the economy/wars/the bloom off the rose of hope and change) and have a candidate with enormous appeal to the base.

By 2012,with Palin at the head of the ticket the Republicans will have a seasoned campaigner,well versed in the the issues of the day and a hugely dedicated mass of supporters willing to work and raise money from dawn to dusk-I envisage a supehuman effort eventuating the likes never seen before.Palin has taken every sexist, biased, distorted shot thrown at her and not only is she still standing she is growing in stature all the time-a fact which is obvious to all (and the root cause of all the spiteful bile being thrown at her by the liberals).No other viable, that is winning, candidate exists for the GOP in point of fact because if she is not nominated the base will simply stay home and wait for 2016.

Presuming Palin is the 2012 standard bearer I believe the best strategy would be to not spend one cent or to set one foot in any state except the ones won closely in 2008 and the ones in the winning formula.The exceptions being Michigan, which she is morally bound to campaign in given her strong feelings about the perceived mistake in pulling out of that state in 2008, and also Pennsylvania and New Hampshire as investments for the future-and because you never know what may happen.

It should be easy to once again win the 22 states the McCain Palin team won in 2008 and not too difficult a challenge to regain the states lost by a below 2% margin.If most resources in time,manpower and money goes into the rest of the 4-5 historically red states which will provide the winning EV's (and perhaps a VP candidate from one of them) it should be an easy run to the White House for our first female President.

Of course 2012 is a long way off and even if Obama's polls drop into the 30's, the economy might pick up enough to provide the electorate with a sense of stability and growth.If that is the case then there might be another Reagan versus Mondale result,this time against the GOP, no matter who the candidate is.However,given a still stagnant economy ,and other factors,America will start getting used to the term "Madam President".

Monday, December 7, 2009

It is of course perfectly legitimate to disagree with Palin's opinions.Not just to disagree politically and academically but,in the good old American tradition of strenuous discourse,sarcastically,stringently and of course loudly (loudly in the computer age is ALL CAPITALS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS !!!)

What is not legitimate is to attack Palin as a woman either her female persona or her physical female being.It not being legitimate has not stopped the liberal press and bloggers and their commentators from descending into the very pits of foul mouthed rampant sexism.

The lowest of the low include The Huffington Post,Daily Kos and the beyond disgusting Wonkette and now Slate which was considered to be of a higher standard.The execrable Christopher Hitchens had this to say in his latest column That bloom will soon enough fade, and it will fade really quickly if she uses it to prostitute herself to the Nixonites on one day and then to cock-tease the rabble on the next

The Trig Truthers in their various guises are simply deluded and laughable huddled together in their jealousy and conspiracies and poor Sullivan in The Atlantic is off on another planet in his obsession-they are best ignored.

It is now obvious to any observer that Palin is "she who must be destroyed" as she is clearly a major threat to the liberals.The fact is that not only is she still standing after all their best efforts is driving them to unbefore seen heights of vituperative attack.What this has done is to expose the
feminists as first and foremost a tool and adjunct of the Democrats.

Not only were the happy to ignore Bill Clinton's escapades (imagine if that had been Reagan)and quiet when Hillary was being torn down but have been happy to join the chorus attacking Palin.Only when Letterman got into the gutter with his snideness about Palin's daughter did NOW stick its head above the parapet.Where were the howls of outrage about Newsweeks cover of Palin? What would have been the reaction if that had been Michelle Obama?

No one is asking women to support a woman politician just because she is female but for the feminist movement to have any credibility at all they surely must now take a stand against the gross sexism,disgusting foul mouthed comments on the likes of Wonkette and by people like Hitchens.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The folks who run the International Bowling Expo 2010 have enthusiastically enounced that Sarah Palin will be a guest speaker.This has of course been met with howls of derision from left wing commentators with The Huffington Post jumping straight in.

Posters comments along the lines of when you think of bowling you think of "cheese fries and Miller" i.e. bowling halls filled with the great unwashed common people.Certainly not only would Obama not be so undignified to address such a convention of the ordinary the fact that he can't bowl is taken as a badge of honor.

The Democrats are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.The Jacksonian party of and for the people had leaders who were in the main clearly connected with the great mass of common folk which strain ran through Johnson,Humphrey up to Clinton.The party of Kerry and Obama in contrast has created a massive disconnect to mainstream America amongst the activist wing who viewed George W. Bush as a yokel.

The thought of Sarah Palin as President is to them,if it were possible,
an even lower potential occupant of the oval office and they have lost all sense of rationality.For the seeming elite they appear incapable of discussing without sarcasm anything to do with her and are reduced to finding flaws real and imaginary,witness the latest ridiculous attacks on her mode of travel on her book tour.

What they don't get is that Palin is going about the business of rebuilding the Reagan coalition of mainstream Republicans and mainstream
Democrats-the sort that can be found by the millions bowling,drinking Miller and eating fries across America and one day going to the polls.